From A to Z: What's wrong with Obama's birth certificate?

World Net Daily ^ | May 13, 2011 | Staff

[Smokeyblue]

After years of stonewalling and fighting in court to keep his long-form birth certificate under wraps, President Barack Obama has publicized an image of the document he claims should resolve his birthplace once and for all.

But is it the real deal?

In his speech announcing the birth certificate's release, Obama quickly tried to silence critical analysis of document:

"I know that there's going to be a segment of people for which, no matter what we put out, this issue will not be put to rest, but I'm speaking to the vast majority of the American people," Obama said. "We do not have time for this kind of silliness."

But Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, the only news agency that has waged a relentless investigative campaign on questions swirling around Obama's constitutional eligibility, warns those questions shouldn't be dismissed so quickly.

"The news media and the political establishment were quick to rush to judgment regarding Obama's eligibility in 2008, without any basis," Farah said. "It would be a big mistake for everyone to jump to a conclusion now based on the release of this document, which raises as many questions as it answers."

Some of those questions have already been resolved – such as rumors WND debunked claiming the name of the hospital on the document was fictitious – while others present significant challenges to accepting the birth certificate's validity.

[Hotlanta Mike]

Come on, she knew the Alinskyites were all set to release a forgery on the public and she wanted to make clear that the document THAT SHE HAS SEEN was half type-writtena nd half hand-writte. Plausible deniability...

[Mr. K]

No - I am a computer software engineer - I write imaging software FOR A LIVING and this guy is right about everything

To the gullibles here that say “oh it’s just OCR” get your head out of your ass- OCR soes NOT make these kind of layers.

There was even a video of a guy making an image WITH OCR that he says explains it all, and he showed moving text off the image- but there was IMAGE UNDER THE TEXT (in other words, he was faking the demo -if it was real, the computer would not know what was UNDER the text)

[Mr. K]

NO~!

Hawaii says that this is an ABSTRACT and it can be used in Hawaii as a valid BC.

They ‘proclaim’ it to be true. Dictatorships do this.

I dont believe them for a minute, and they obviously have NO 50 YEAR OLD BIRTH CERTIFICATE THEY CAN COPY to prove it

If they did, they would have slid it onto the copy machine and made a few copies for everyone.

THEY (someone) MANUFACTURED THIS DOCUMENT and then swore that the facts are correct

That is very different than a copy of a document (50 years old)

They could manufacture anything, and then swear to it- with enough pressure (and maybe some ‘waivers’)

And The Donald had already had investigators prove that she was not at that hospital, and the birth announcement DID NOT come from either hospital.

and what were these ‘waivers’ Obama had to send a team of lawyers to sign????

I dont need no stinkin’ waivers to get my BC.

[palmer]

I write imaging software FOR A LIVING

I had in the past written PDF generators and parsers. I used emacs to remove the layers in the WH PDF one at a time to see what was left.

OCR soes NOT make these kind of layers.

The image with one of the layers removed looks like this:

The background under the removed text is unknown as it should be. The removed text meets the criteria for scannable text (the SW extracted the text and some other stuff (the unham from Dunham) and left behind obvious nontext (border lines, most of the signatures, text overlapping with the signatures, etc). The intent of whoever did this preprocessing was not OCR, but simply to create a bunch of junky layers to waste people's time. That is in fact all the layers are: junk. A forger would have to do extra work to, for example, forge the left paren for Stanley separately from Stanley and the right paren. You are simply looking at a bunch of digital junk created from a real scanned piece of paper.

[Safrguns]

>>> Do you really and truly think we can wait until 2012 even if Obama does not get re-elected? The problems continually grows exponentially bigger since even w/ him gone his policies will take much longer to overturn.

No I don’t think we can wait. Your point about exponential damage WAS my point.

I think we’ve waited too long already... no matter how the correction comes, it’s going to be devastating to public confidence in our government... and it’s unavoidable.

It’s now more about an issue of timing, and who gets to choose it... because the timing can maximize the impact to ensure a total coup if that is the goal of our enemies.

I was referencing a mindset in the elitist class (liberal and conservative) that thinks this can be swept under the rug to minimize impact or avoid it alltogether.

They are dead wrong.

Even with Obama gone and a new republican president, the danger remains because of the legislation left behind and it’s enforceability.

Now... if you were the communist mastermind with trigger in hand, would you pull it now? or wait till a constitutional conservative was back in office?

[Safrguns]

good for your son...

Too bad our representatives don’t have the same courage to face reality.

[BrandtMichaels]

Yep we’re in agreement the longer it goes on the worse it gets and past history answers your last question - anything to make the R’s look bad.

I’d like to think that our military can retain/restore order but then these are the same ones who let Lakin bear his cross alone.

At least my last best hope will always be there - my retirement plan that is out of this world!

[Salamander]

There were a sizable group of us saying that very thing when he first showed up ‘out of nowhere’.

Something was *seriously* wrong with the whole setup and nothing like this happens by chance, luck or accident.

The libs took notes during 2000 and 2004 and *finally* perfected election fraud and theft...and ran a “Teflon candidate” who was untouchable because of his theoretical race.

It was brilliant, really, in the most evil sense of the word.

The average stoner lib isn’t capable of such of such malignant genius so I do believe ‘greater powers’ are pulling his strings.

[Kenny Bunk]

WND is absolutely no help.

In the first place, there is no BC. What the WH received from the HIDOH was a digitally prepared ABSTRACT of data on file with the HIDOH. It is a newly created document, not a copy of an existing LFBC.

What the WH did was to COPY that ABSTRACT and release it to the press, allowing everyone to assume that it was a copy of the LFBC.

As an ABSTRACT
it cannot purport to contain
ALL the info on the original document,
just what the ABSTRACTOR deems important.

That the world, including WND, assumes is that this is the BC. It just ain't. IMHO, the hysterical and always slightly misleading prose of WND would be amusing if more read it carefully.

As we say in Maine, "They's always 'bout half a bubble off plumb."

[itsahoot]

I wish we could ask them, but they are dead and so is our Republic.

Anyone old enough to remember VJ Day, no longer recognizes their country, and is too old to do anything about it. Who will step up to the plate? You?

[itsahoot]

My original birth certificate was a standard photostatic copy, the old white text on black background, a few years ago, I had reason to request a new birth certificate.

What I received was a spanking new official looking document printed with a merging software, guess what, all the same stuff appeared on the new document, including misspelled names. The original document was mostly hand written by the attending doctor. No hospital involved.

Of course in those days you could get a birth certificate based on an entry in a family Bible.

[AndyTheBear]

OK, I have adobe Illustrator, although I am a novice user. I would be interested to see if I could recreate a similar effect by scanning various images and loading them into pdf.

As both of you have some expertise with illustrator, and you come down on different sides of this debate, I thought I would ping you about it, and maybe check in if I get confused.

Thanks in advance for taking an interest in determining the truth and trying to help me and others understand this stuff.

[Safrguns]

>>> At least my last best hope will always be there - my retirement plan that is out of this world!

with you on that one.

This all just demonstrates how close we really are to retirement age.

[DouglasKC]

Hawaii says that this is an ABSTRACT and it can be used in Hawaii as a valid BC. They ‘proclaim’ it to be true. Dictatorships do this. I dont believe them for a minute, and they obviously have NO 50 YEAR OLD BIRTH CERTIFICATE THEY CAN COPY to prove it

Mr. K you hit the nail on the head:

ABSTRACT

–noun
6. a summary of a text, scientific article, document, speech, etc.; epitome.
7. something that concentrates in itself the essential qualities of anything more extensive or more general, or of several things; essence.

In other words, this is NOT an original birth certificate. It's a manufactured document that is sourced from documents that the state of Hawaii has that purports Obama's birth in Hawaii.

These documents, according to Hawaiian law at the time, could be hand written statements by the parent, or by the grand parents, attesting that Obama was born in Hawaii. These would be accepted as proof EVEN if he was really born somewhere else.

It's an ABSTRACT which explains why it appears to be not genuine. It's because it's not. It's not an original birth certificate. This document didn't exist until it was cobbled together by the state of Hawaii at the request of Obama.

[Just mythoughts]

It's an ABSTRACT which explains why it appears to be not genuine. It's because it's not. It's not an original birth certificate. This document didn't exist until it was cobbled together by the state of Hawaii at the request of Obama.

And this begs the question What has he been using all these years for a 'birth certificate'? He is a world traveler and that requires a passport, no matter from which country is his origin. The State Department would have all the documentation needed and nobody would have to fly all the way to Hawaii to find papers.

[palmer]

I have not used Illustrator, just GIMP from time to time. To get my images that I have posted, I edited out layers from the WH PDF using emacs. I understand PDF file formats, they are straightforward and each section (in this case the layer) is separable from the others without having to modify any other cruft in the file.

The bottom line is what I just posted in another thread: the WH PDF is consistent with being a paper document (source is not knowable by us) that was scanned into the program and then processed into layers. The processing is typically (but not completely) what would precede OCR. It was not OCR and that fact is irrelevant. The relevant fact is that most text and some parts of signatures in the original scanned document ended up in another layer (ready for OCR).

The distribution of text and parts of signatures into that layer is consistent with being based on darkness, line thicknesses, and orientation (the larger boxes on the form did not go into the OCR layer, but checkboxes did. Part of the rubber stamp went into yet another layer based on its darkness or possibly selected by whoever created the PDF. The distribution into layers is not consistent with a forged digital artifact since the layers are not consistent (some have only parts of a signature or a single letter from a word). If there was a forgery it would have to have been followed by the processing I described the same way as if it this processing started with a scanned doc.

So my theory is simpler, a paper artifact, scanned, turned into junky layers. The conspiracy theory is complex, a forgery based on pieces of stuff put into arbitrary layers for no reason, then not flattened (again for no reason). Also the strange sources of the signatures is not described, e.g. the D in Dunham having to come from a different source than unham.

[Red Steel]

Hawaii says that this is an ABSTRACT and it can be used in Hawaii as a valid BC. They ‘proclaim’ it to be true. Dictatorships do this. I dont believe them for a minute, and they obviously have NO 50 YEAR OLD BIRTH CERTIFICATE THEY CAN COPY to prove it

If Obama wants to prove he's not a fraud, he can submit that silly abstract to a court of law. Gee, why doesn't Obama do just that if he is telling the truth? I'd show a court mine and just about everyone else would too. BUT Obama puts out forgeries to cover up his lying.

An expert witness has been submitted (See below) as of yesterday, his testimony in the Federal court case in Hornbeck Offshore Services, LLC v. Ken Salazar, Secretary of Interior:

You'll notice the dingbat OBots here won't have Obama prove who he is in court, but they spin like tops defending his idiotic COLB images he puts on the Internet.

[Just mythoughts]

Oh, I know the 'kook' patrol will most likely show up to tell US we are embarrassing them again to even discuss this bait and switch project.

But there is NO conceivable good reason for all this cloak and dagger drama of hiding origins, producing documents that should have been in his possession for years.

I personally am at this point regarding this manufactured controversy.... Luke 12:1 In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another,

HE began to say unto His disciples first of all, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

2 For there is NOTHING, covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.

Only an act of the Heavenly Father will restore to US what has been stripped from US by liars, cheats, thieves, and a bunch of complacent 'bi' partisan cowards.

[AndyTheBear]

While your induction makes some sense, I suppose my thinking is that its an important question, and thus somebody ought make some effort to nail it down one way or another. The best way I can think of would be to recreate the results by getting the closest thing to the original bc that can be scanned and loading it into Illustrator in all the different ways they might have done so...and see if we get similar behavior.

Now it would be great if the white house had an image somewhere that was not a pdf that they maintains was the directly scanned image...but as far as I know all we have is the pdf (actually I don't have a copy, would be nice to get it) and an image from the pdf. If they have not put out the original that would be a curious thing though...so I suppose I need to hunt for it...sigh.

If I can get similar behavior, then I can dismiss this issue unless some new reason to doubt the bc comes up. However if I can't get the same behavior, then I am kinda stuck, because as far as I know I just haven't tried to load it the exact same way...or they had a different version of Illustrator or whatever.

[nikos1121]

Cant really tell which side you’re on.

The BC that is post on the Gov’t website is fake, pure and simple. If you have seen the video explanations on why it’s a forgery, and you still disagree, them that’s your opinion. If you haven’t seen the videos then I don’t think you have anything to add to this discussion.

Clearly, the media, Obama and his minionn have marginalized anyone who questions the authenticity of the BC. My brother, a smart man, refuses to view anything that says the BC is fake.

He laughs... says it’s crazy, that the state of Hawaii autheniticated it, and that’s enought for him.

He has a PHd, he’s a conservative, yet... like many he’s sick of the whole thing.

Obama seems to have won the argument, but in this country we eventually all get to hear the truth...